Haven't done the math, but I guesstimate that your hypothesis is probably wrong.

Your hypothesis requires mass to be created from energy (not a theoretical issue and it would be cool as hell), but if I correctly remember the numbers presented, there is too much thrust for the energy input (according to your hypothesis), since mass would require insane amounts of energy just to be created, never mind accelerated.

If this thing were to truly work, it would have insane implications to some basic assumptions about the universe - namely about the very laws of physics themselves.

This device working means that the laws of physics do vary by translation, which goes against every single other observation ever made. The science behind it is most certainly not clearly sound. Skepticism is the only logical option for this thing.

Any non-under-the-table sales over a certain amount must identify both parties, in many jurisdictions. Small purchases don't require that.

This ruling has no impact on anonymity: If something was to be kept off the radar, it sure as hell wouldn't be bothered with taxes and government bureaucracy. If it's just something small that should be kept quiet, nobody bothers or is forced to collect information about the buyer.

What are you talking about? Your statement is the opposite of what happened.

The court basically said "Yeah, that's basically like money" - meaning it's not a product itself but can be used to acquire other products. *Those* products are still subjected to VAT, as should be, but bitcoin itself isn't.

Now you're clearly being argumentative because you can't accept the possibility that the idea you defended was a bad one.

And that's fine because the argument against me at the time was "you don't have an aeronautical degree so you can't say anything about the issue that is not 100 percent in line with the status quo"...

So I cited that actually the ideas had been proposed initially by people with such degrees. Which is now causing you to goal post move.

Now the issue is "money". Which is a different consideration. We're talking about economics, business models, existing production lines, etc.

No such argument was made. It was an observation.Another observation I'll make is that you seem unable to grasp that more weight = less money made at the end of the day (in one way or another).

Weight itself is irrelevant, from an engineering standpoint. We can make the whole thing bigger to match the capacity of the lighter option. The problem is that it's crazy expensive all around! It costs more to produce, costs more to operate, costs more to maintain, costs more to land (airport fees are often based on maximum takeoff weight)...Less weight = more money.

Ultimately you're going to argue "this is bad because it isn't the way we do things right now. Only status quo policies are good"... You are not currently making that argument... but you've already painted yourself into that corner. Its just a matter of time.

I will put the final nail in your argument's coffin by making the obvious counter argument that nothing would ever change or improve if we didn't challenge the status quo and have a willingness to try new things.

Damn, you're full of yourself.

Nobody is arguing for the "status quo". What is being argued is that the status quo is the status quo for good reason and that your alternative is worse than the status quo. Changing things just because is not engineering. It's throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Seriously, here's some advice for life:

When somebody says you're wrong, don't reply by accusing them of "moving the goalposts" or employing a "strawman" (curiously, that's what you've been doing). Don't act like a prick because some people share your opinion.And, most importantly, don't play the victim card when somebody makes a statement about you. There's nothing wrong with not having an aerospace degree, but there is something wrong with pretending to know more about the subject than the people who do.

Feel free to respond above with arguments against my point, but remember: "Aerospace engineers looked at the problem" is not an argument. It's their fucking job to investigate alternatives. It's also their job to discard the bad alternatives - including the one you're so strongly defending, for some mysterious reason.